Appeal No. 1998-1914
Application No. 08/528,130
comparison between “each respective individual filter output signal” and the RF signal, as
required by instant claim 1.
Since we agree with appellants that the examiner’s finding of anticipation is
erroneous, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. Each of independent claims 4 and
11 sets forth a respective “processing means” having the “comparing” function that is not
found in the reference. We therefore do not sustain the section 102 rejection of claims 1,
4, 5, and 11 over Bailey.
Turning to the rejection of claim 10 as being anticipated by Hurvitz (Final Rejection,
page 5), the examiner points to Figure 2 of Hurvitz and refers to a “glowing
electroluminescence.” “Comparing the amplitudes can thus be done by sight.” (Id.)
Initially, we note that Figure 2 of Hurvitz does not depict a physical device, but
shows a “circuit equivalent in electrical properties to the transmission line or condenser of
Figure 1.” See Hurvitz, column 3, lines 18-39. We also agree with appellants, for the
reasons presented on pages 13 through 16 of the Brief, that the reference does not
support a finding of anticipation.
With particular reference to column 3, line 40 through column 4, line 65, Hurvitz
discloses conductors 13 (Figs. 3 and 4) connected in series with a piezo-electric crystal
14. A common signal input terminal 17 is provided for all the crystals 14. If one of the
crystals 14 is resonant to the frequency of the input signal, current is permitted to flow to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007